• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

Induction and Deduction

Didums

New member
Joined
Jun 20, 2008
Messages
680
Lots of stuff to respond to, cutting dumb things out.

I have. In another thread. How about, instead, you research my proposition.

You're not a publishing firm -- I don't have to prove shit to you. I'm offering an idea, not appealing to your approval.

Well that's not far from idiotic. If I'm right, regardless of whether or not I've justified myself, I'm still right.

If you present yourself like an ignorant moron, I will treat you that way. Reread the post that I was responding to and see if thats the way you want to present yourself.

Are you? I'm goddamn right. Look it up if you don't believe me, but don't try to shove off a bunch of proofing responsibilities on to me. If you wanna know the truth, you'll hear what I have to say, and check to see if it's true. If it's not, then come back and tell me I'm wrong.

I told you were wrong and presented reasons why.


You said Brain = Computer, which is wrong, so I corrected the analogy.

Living material? Do you think the molecules in a brain have different qualities of those in a computer? It's all electrons and protons. So a brain biodegreades more quickly. That's only because there are bacteria who use the same atoms in their own life. If we had silicone based life forms, we'd have to worry about our semiconductors being eaten too.

Living material...

/sarcasm on

Do you think molecules in a rock have different qualities in those of a cat? It's all electrons and protons. So the cat biodegrades more quickly. That's only because there are bacteria who use the same atoms in their own life...

pff, life, totally overrated, nothing special comes from it, no discernable qualities...

/sarcasm off

And just where do you think we got our fuel from? It had to come from somewhere -- think: Womb. Womb is a factory, which fills up the battery charge.

I specifically mentioned to disregard this argument because it is irrelevant to computers, because they have no infant stage. They are either functioning or they aren't, it doesn't develop into a stage of functioning.

That we know of currently. But actually, if you know anything about physics, you know that there is a way to restart a brain, we just haven't figured out precisely how to do it, probably because it's just really really hard/complicated.

I said, right in parenthesis, that the brain can be revived, however depending on how long it was shut-down, its not going to be the same, information has been lost.

PCs imitate part of a brain.

Yes.

The brain is a computer.

No.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Neither could humans.

Humans are not a natural product of evolution? Humans cannot come into existence by themselves? Which of those was that a response to?

If it was the former, then you are wrong, if it was the latter, then I agree (we come into existence from our parents).

Interesting definition of unchanging you're using. Everything your computer does is a physical change in its internal system.

Who initiates the changes.

Additionally, we can program learning algorithms into computers -- they rewrite their own programming based on data and calculated trends.

Computers are quite good at mathematical processing, because thats how we intended them to be.

We could attach a camera to a computer and have it change things about its programming based on that input.

We could attach a microphone, blah blah.

You get my point (I hope).

Who attaches the camera, who programs the computer to understand how to change things based on the input.

We are computers (in the broad sense of the word -- information processing machines) with specific kinds of input systems, and specific kinds of processing algorithms.

The blatant statement "Brain = Computer" made by Noc is not accurate. Brains are more complex, computers are similar to parts of how our brain works, but not the brain as a whole.

Computers and humans need energy -- we could conceivably make a machine that extracted chemicals out of similar kinds of food, and moves around the environment seeking out those kinds of food (it would be incredibly hard, but definitely not theoretically impossible).

Yes but we would have to play God by giving it those abilities. We have the ability to seek food intrinsically. And were it to be able to metabolize, and therefore grow, and additionally if it could reproduce (or self-reproduce), it is no longer just a computer, it is life.

Plus, if you actually listened to my "everything is a deductive process" argument, you could hopefully see how even intuition could be programmed into a computer.

Bleh alot of repeating myself.. key word in your sentece: Programmed. It is Not Intrinsic.

Again, how would you argue that the brain is capable of something that a computer is literally incapable of doing? I'd like an example of a process that can not be thought of as input/output relations.

Fear, anger, joy, anxiousness, tiredness, hatred, love, greed, humility, get the picture? These are input/output relations.

Our race has been "programmed" by our surroundings. A computer is programmed by its surroundings...

Not an accurate analogy, it is too vague.

Think about Abiogenesis, Evolution, Natural selection, mutations, genetics, etc. Do these apply to computers? Simply put, a computer is not programmed from its surroundings, it is programmed from us, we are God to computers. Yet, we need no God to come into existence.

------------------------------------------------

I'm not going to be able to respond to anything from here on, too time consuming and i've got homework.
 

redacted

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 28, 2007
Messages
4,223
Humans are not a natural product of evolution? Humans cannot come into existence by themselves? Which of those was that a response to?

If it was the former, then you are wrong, if it was the latter, then I agree (we come into existence from our parents).

Humans cannot come into existence by themselves. And they could not have come into existence through natural selection without exactly the right ecological circumstances. In other words, the surroundings determine the traits.

Same is true of computers, their surroundings determine the traits they have.

Also, what the hell does "natural" mean?

Who initiates the changes.

Um, the system reacting with the environment determines the changes. Ditto for humans. Some of the changes happen inside the computer (analogous to internal processing in humans), some outside (noises it makes, images on the screen).

"Who" is a meaningless question in this discussion.

Computers are quite good at mathematical processing, because thats how we intended them to be.

What kind of processing isn't mathematical?

Who attaches the camera, who programs the computer to understand how to change things based on the input.

Again, "who" is a meaningless question here. The attached camera is developed because of the environment. Just like the eye developed because of the environment.

The blatant statement "Brain = Computer" made by Noc is not accurate. Brains are more complex, computers are similar to parts of how our brain works, but not the brain as a whole.

Hmm. I hope one day you take some computer science and mental modeling classes.

Yes but we would have to play God by giving it those abilities. We have the ability to seek food intrinsically. And were it to be able to metabolize, and therefore grow, and additionally if it could reproduce (or self-reproduce), it is no longer just a computer, it is life.

What does "playing God" mean? What does "intrinsically" mean? What does "life" mean?

What would stop us from creating computers that can create computers? Would those computers be fundamentally different? No. They'd just have different data. The fact that computers are information processing machines will always be true.

The brain is an information processing machine... Do you really not see this?

Why do you say computers don't grow? Their data changes in response to the environment. Same with humans. We have learning algorithms, computers have learning algorithms...

Bleh alot of repeating myself.. key word in your sentece: Programmed. It is Not Intrinsic.

Intrinsic? What does that have to do with anything?

Fear, anger, joy, anxiousness, tiredness, hatred, love, greed, humility, get the picture? These are input/output relations.

Those are labels we put on specific kinds of information processing that our consciousness does not have direct access to.

That doesn't mean those things aren't information processing...

How would something that isn't information processing interact with something that is? Doesn't make sense. Try to resolve that one for me...

Not an accurate analogy, it is too vague.

Think about Abiogenesis, Evolution, Natural selection, mutations, genetics, etc. Do these apply to computers? Simply put, a computer is not programmed from its surroundings, it is programmed from us, we are God to computers. Yet, we need no God to come into existence.

Covered all this.

I'm not going to be able to respond to anything from here on, too time consuming and i've got homework.

Too bad.
 

Oleander

New member
Joined
Sep 30, 2008
Messages
86
MBTI Type
INFP
About time we gained the courage to separate Darwinism from Evolution. Creationists have done Darwinism no end of good by making it synonymous with Evolution in the same way that the USSR became synonymous with Communism or Socialism when in reality they are just one version. Darwin was a man of his time with no knowledge of genetics and it is painful to hear a bigot like Richard Dawkins promote as 'Darwinist' molecular genetics that Darwin never imagined and end up sounding every much a believer in his untenable faith as any Creationist.

I believe that evolution can only really be understood as applying to whole environments, not to isolated individuals or genes. Rupert Sheldrake has some good ideas that suit modern research better than Darwin and Lamarck also explained things like cave fish losing their sight better than Darwin ever did. It probably takes a bit of all of them and there is no single 'answer'.
 

Didums

New member
Joined
Jun 20, 2008
Messages
680
Dissonance,

My messages were clear. The use of "Who" was to emphasize that We are the computer's "environment", Humans attach the camera, a human isn't an environment, if you fail to see that it is an unjust comparison then I understand why you responded in such a way as you did. "What does "playing God" mean? What does "intrinsically" mean? What does "life" mean?" My message in using these words were also very clear.

I'm not interested in playing a game of semantics, a dictionary is a great resource.
 

redacted

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 28, 2007
Messages
4,223
How is a human not part of the environment?

The dictionary definitions of those words aren't viable in this argument. They are too subjective.

My point in asking you what they meant was that I bet you cannot provide a sensible definition for those things in the context of this discussion.
 

Didums

New member
Joined
Jun 20, 2008
Messages
680
How is a human not part of the environment?

We are part of the environment. But we are not the environment as a whole. You talk about humans as if we are the environment to computers. Environments are composed of Biotic and Abiotic factors. The way we adapt is by the environment as a whole, biotic and abiotic. Computers 'adapt' only through the Biotic, we Arbitrarily change them (Can you see why I say we are God to computers?)

Can you now see my objection to the analogy: "Humans are to Computers as Environments are to Humans"? (I know that you didn't say that direcly but its the jist of what you were saying)


The dictionary definitions of those words aren't viable in this argument. They are too subjective.

Contexual hints are always there. If you really cannot see them I'll gladly show you Exactly what I meant, but thats like giving someone the answer without having them do the problem..

My point in asking you what they meant was that I bet you cannot provide a sensible definition for those things in the context of this discussion.

I would not have said those things if they didnt mean anything in the context, its your job to figure it out, if you can't, i'll tell you. Also, by what I said in the response the the 1st quote above, you should understand what I mean much more clearly.



Also.. I've always had difficulty conversing with INFJs, if that means anything..
 

redacted

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 28, 2007
Messages
4,223
Meh. I do have problems describing my Ni "vision". My Intuition AND Thinking are based on the internal standard, so while my views are logically sound, it's somewhat unnatural for me to translate them. Especially because I don't have the luxury of non-verbal communication (tone, gesture, etc.).

I never have any problem explaining my ideas to INTPs in real life, but I seem to be constantly misunderstood on the internet by INTPs especially.

It's funny, because I've talked about all of these ideas (the analogy program:computer::mind:brain for example) to all of my professors who all understand exactly what my viewpoint is. One of them is INTP, one ENTP, one INTJ. They always agree with me too...

Gah, these threads are so frustrating because it's taken me like 50 times the effort to get my point across (and people are still misunderstanding) than in real life.

I hope nocapszy helps me out here because he at least gets what I'm sayin... (although people WANT him to be wrong, because he doesn't care about tact, heh.)

Anyways, I'm done with this thread because I've presented my ideas in like 10 different ways and lots of people still don't get it.
 

Nocapszy

no clinkz 'til brooklyn
Joined
Jun 29, 2007
Messages
4,517
MBTI Type
ENTP
And in response to your last post to me: I don't have to present anything in a thorough or even respectable way. I'm not here to convince anyone. I'm here to post my ideas. The computer thing is irrefutable. Dissonance doesn't know how to present it and I don't feel any sense of responsibility to explain it, so if you really want to

know the truth, you'll look it up.

Otherwise, it's clear that you're not interested in finding out about anything -- just defending CC, or knocking down dis.

For the record, he and I aren't even the first two people to consider it, and we're not the only ones to believe it now.

In my experience, the only people who don't see how a brain is a computer are people who don't really know the fundamental workings of either.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

SillySapienne

`~~Philosoflying~~`
Joined
Jan 14, 2008
Messages
9,801
MBTI Type
ENFP
Enneagram
4w5
At the sub-atomic level, yes, essentially ALL things are the "same", made up of the same parts and driven by the same physical laws. And even though at greater levels of complexity, ALL things are still driven by the same physical laws, we must ask ourselves, what exactly it is that differentiates the biotic realm of things from the abiotic realm of things.

I am a living thing made up of nonliving parts, it is a perplexing thing to think about.

I am no cognitive-neuroscientist, but I am quite sure that a computer is a non-living thing made up of non-living parts.

womanrobotCOR_450x350.jpg


It is 11:30am here, way too early for me to be up, so I am going back to shweep.

Complex adaptive system - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Oh, and Nocap, YOU BETTER HAVE AS MANY OR MORE INFRACTIONS AS I, if not, that shit is just plain sexist unfairness, you fucking dick. ;)

And... LOL

computer.jpg


Computer = Brain

Computer = Toilet

Brain = Toilet

YAY!!!!

:)
 

Nocapszy

no clinkz 'til brooklyn
Joined
Jun 29, 2007
Messages
4,517
MBTI Type
ENTP
Chick, if you're made of nonliving parts, and you are alive, where exactly does the life come in?

That is to ask, which level is the one where you become valued -- what system causes it? Where do morals and physically intrinsic values come into the equation?

If you could answer this please... you would literally cure my depression once and for all.
 

redacted

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 28, 2007
Messages
4,223
I am a living thing made up of nonliving parts, it is a perplexing thing to think about.

I am no cognitive-neuroscientist, but I am quite sure that a computer is a non-living thing made up of non-living parts.

The real question is, since both humans and computers are made up of non-living parts, how can you think of a non-gray boundary between the two? They're fundamentally the same thing.

Our concept of "life" is an emergent property of a certain kind of processing system. It's not anything about the physical implementation of that system.

So basically, a brain is a specific kind of computer (with certain emergent properties that we call consciousness, the mind, feelings, etc.). A computer is not necessarily a brain, obviously. But we could program a computer and find ourselves looking at a system with similar (or equivalent) emergent properties. A properly programmed computer could literally "think".

Because, if a human can think, and a human is made up of non-living functional parts, why wouldn't a computer be able to?
 

Didums

New member
Joined
Jun 20, 2008
Messages
680
And in response to your last post to me: I don't have to present anything in a thorough or even respectable way. I'm not here to convince anyone. I'm here to post my ideas. The computer thing is irrefutable. Dissonance doesn't know how to present it and I don't feel any sense of responsibility to explain it, so if you really want to

know the truth, you'll look it up.

Otherwise, it's clear that you're not interested in finding out about anything -- just defending CC, or knocking down dis.

For the record, he and I aren't even the first two people to consider it, and we're not the only ones to believe it now.

In my experience, the only people who don't see how a brain is a computer are people who don't really know the fundamental workings of either.


If you read my posts and understood them (and the implications they make) then you would know why I object to your brash oversimpification of this matter, that meaning why your analogy is not just.

Its a pretty simple idea that the brain works like a computer, but its an oversimplified analogy that "Brain = computer", and I've explained many ways in which they are very different.

Its not like I don't understand the idea Nocap, I've thought of it myself very often, but I go a few steps further in my reasoning and take more things into account instead of ignoring them to make my idea fit 'just right'.

Because you have failed to defend your idea all it shows me is that you don't know how to do it, instead you try and take the high-and-mighty-chair by saying that your idea is irrefutable and that you just don't care to prove it, that you only present your ideas and that we're the ones that are supposed to research them. I'm sorry but thats not how arguments work. If your idea was so irrefutable you would be able to explain it with ease because it would be perfectly logical, and were it irrefutable and easily reachable by intuition then I would find myself agreeing with you.

Meh. I do have problems describing my Ni "vision". My Intuition AND Thinking are based on the internal standard, so while my views are logically sound, it's somewhat unnatural for me to translate them. Especially because I don't have the luxury of non-verbal communication (tone, gesture, etc.).

I never have any problem explaining my ideas to INTPs in real life, but I seem to be constantly misunderstood on the internet by INTPs especially.

It's funny, because I've talked about all of these ideas (the analogy program:computer::mind:brain for example) to all of my professors who all understand exactly what my viewpoint is. One of them is INTP, one ENTP, one INTJ. They always agree with me too...

Gah, these threads are so frustrating because it's taken me like 50 times the effort to get my point across (and people are still misunderstanding) than in real life.

I hope nocapszy helps me out here because he at least gets what I'm sayin... (although people WANT him to be wrong, because he doesn't care about tact, heh.)

Anyways, I'm done with this thread because I've presented my ideas in like 10 different ways and lots of people still don't get it.

Appealing to authority doesn't make you any more right in my eyes :)

I understand your idea dissonance, trust me, I do, but I see flaws, thats what I do. As I just mentioned in responding to nocap, the idea makes sense, but only because it's too simple, and the oversimplification of it makes it innaccurate, take the ideas that i've presented as evidence for their (the brain and computer's) differences and you'll see that the oversimplified analogy "Brain = Computer" is slightly ignorant...
 

redacted

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 28, 2007
Messages
4,223
Appealing to authority doesn't make you any more right in my eyes :)

I'm not trying to appeal to authority. I'm trying to explain how frustrating this is for me. You SHOULDN'T believe me more because other people do...but maybe you should believe that there's validity, and try to think of different ways to interpret my points until you find one that works better than your current one.

I understand your idea dissonance, trust me, I do, but I see flaws, thats what I do.

As do I, and there are none here. The flaws you're seeing are flaws in interpretation (maybe in my writing?), not in the idea.

As I just mentioned in responding to nocap, the idea makes sense, but only because it's too simple, and the oversimplification of it makes it innaccurate, take the ideas that i've presented as evidence for their (the brain and computer's) differences and you'll see that the oversimplified analogy "Brain = Computer" is slightly ignorant...

I don't see how any of your ideas disprove anything I've said. Humans have the subjective experience of "feeling" or "pain" or whatever standard argument you want to use, therefore we are fundamentally different than computers? Pretty weak, if you ask me...

It's obvious that we are made out of non-living parts. It's obvious a computer is made out of non-living parts. In that sense, saying the two systems aren't capable of implementing the same function is like saying vacuum tube computers can't do the same things as other sorts of turing machines...

You can made a computing machine out of legos. Would you call the output of a lego-calculator a fundamentally different sort of thing than the output of some other desk calculator? No.

So, sure, the exact material making up the brain and making up computers are different. But to say that one is so fundamentally different from the other seems short-sighted. A computer is just an information processing machine. What does the brain do that isn't information processing?

A properly programmed computer can think/feel/whatever (we are exactly those computers). To say the programming could not even hypothetically be instantiated on another system doesn't make sense.


A computer is a device that accepts information (in the form of digitalized data) and manipulates it for some result based on a program or sequence of instructions on how the data is to be processed. Complex computers also include the means for storing data (including the program, which is also a form of data) for some necessary duration. A program may be invariable and built into the computer (and called logic circuitry as it is on microprocessors) or different programs may be provided to the computer (loaded into its storage and then started by an administrator or user). Today's computers have both kinds of programming.

^What is computer? - a definition from Whatis.com
 

ygolo

My termites win
Joined
Aug 6, 2007
Messages
5,986
I think CC, brings up a good point by bringing up complex adaptive systems.

I accept the computer:program::brain:mind analogy.

But there are differences between a computer and a brain. Whether or not they are relavent to induction vs. deduction is a different matter.

Can we extend the analogy to neurons:axons+dendrites::transistors:wires?

Computers are designed with relatively few connections between basic components when compared to the brain. A transistor can handle only a single input (when used digitally, and has only 4 terminals in general), and can only support a limited number of outputs. Nuerons accept many inputs and outputs. Practical computers have limited numbers of "global" signals and they are designed in ahead of time. Brains have many neruotransmitters (I've seen at least thirteen).

Network theory tells us that "more is different." Networks will exhibit much more complex behaviour when the average number of links increases even a little bit.

Can we build a computer than matches the complexity of the brain? Can the some brain understand the human brain well enough to create a fuctioning version? How is that understanding stored? There at least one scientist that believes that the cortical algorithm is actually very simple.

I think we also need to discuss the difference between a mechanism and deduction. Do we think of a scale model as "deducing" what will hapen in a full-size version? Do we consider simulations as "deducing" what will happen? Usually we ascribe the intelligence to the person who created the simulation or model, not the model itself.

When I deduce something, I create a deductive argument, but does the argument itself "deduce" the conclusion? If I give the argument written down to someone else, then they may be able to deduce the same conclusion.

Similarly, when I induce knowledge, one could say I collected enough evidence to convince myself. But does the evidence collected actually "induce" the knowledge?

That is a subtle distinction, but I think crucial to understanding if deduction and induction are the same thing.

I just want to say that we can already produce machines that both "deduce" and "induce" in essentially the same way our arguments "deduce" or "induce." But I think there is a difference between the deduction and induction used by the human creator and user of the machines/arguments/evidence and the machines/argumets/evidence that do the "deduction" and "induction."
 

redacted

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 28, 2007
Messages
4,223
I think CC, brings up a good point by bringing up complex adaptive systems.

I accept the computer:program::brain:mind analogy.

But there are differences between a computer and a brain. Whether or not they are relavent to induction vs. deduction is a different matter.

Can we extend the analogy to neurons:axons+dendrites::transistors:wires?

It doesn't really extend that far. It's like Marr's Three Levels: he said it's useful to look at each issue in cognition from three perspectives -- computational (the problem itself, the bounds, etc.), algorithmic (the steps it would take to map inputs to outputs), and implementation (the physical realization of the system).

The computer:program::brain:mind analogy only really works on the computational and algorithmic levels. The point is, there are always multiple possible implementations for one algorithm (and multiple algorithms for one computation).

You could have the algorithmic level mapped out for humans, and then instantiate the system in some random physical way, and still get a functionally equivalent system to the mind.

I think we also need to discuss the difference between a mechanism and deduction. Do we think of a scale model as "deducing" what will hapen in a full-size version? Do we consider simulations as "deducing" what will happen? Usually we ascribe the intelligence to the person who created the simulation or model, not the model itself.

When I deduce something, I create a deductive argument, but does the argument itself "deduce" the conclusion? If I give the argument written down to someone else, then they may be able to deduce the same conclusion.

Similarly, when I induce knowledge, one could say I collected enough evidence to convince myself. But does the evidence collected actually "induce" the knowledge?

That is a subtle distinction, but I think crucial to understanding if deduction and induction are the same thing.

I just want to say that we can already produce machines that both "deduce" and "induce" in essentially the same way our arguments "deduce" or "induce." But I think there is a difference between the deduction and induction used by the human creator and user of the machines/arguments/evidence and the machines/argumets/evidence that do the "deduction" and "induction."

Yeah, I think you just pointed out the problem with my terms that's been confusing everyone. I was thinking of deduction in a more loose way -- anything that maps from assumptions/starting points/premises/inputs to an output is basically a deductive process. "Deductive reasoning" is somewhat of a different term. Should've made that more explicit probably.

My argument is basically saying everything is a function.
 

ygolo

My termites win
Joined
Aug 6, 2007
Messages
5,986
Also, the belief that we can make a computer/machine that functions like a human brain remains very speculative.

I am not going to say it is impossible (since I see no clear arguments for that), but I can say it has not been done. There is no existence proof for this.

Note, there are some things, we simply cannot make. We cannot write a program that will analyze all programs to determine if they stop or not--this is known as the halting problem. We cannot make a perpetual motion machine, nor can we make a machine that is 100% efficient.

These are limitations to human creativity--just to show that there are limits.

There are potential stumbling blocks to building a machine that does what a human does in terms of "reasoning"

1) The mind/brain is connected to the body. A lot of what the brain does is based on its inputs from the rest of the body, and its ability to make decisions based on perceived abilities of that body.
2) An individual is embedded in society, and much of what we call deduction and induction are done for particular social purposes.
3) Although, we have been quite successful at making machines that mimic or exceed human capabilities in the mechanistic aspects of reasoning, we have yet to produce one that actually seems intelligent. I've played chess computers that beat be most of the time. I don't consider them intelligent, though I consider their designers to be quite intelligent.

I could expand on those ideas, but I don't believe deduction is necessarily accurately characterized as following a mechanistic procedure.

From mathematical proof to physical theory, to ideas for chess games. The intellectual act is not what is done mechanistically, but what is done to correctly feed the mechanistic processes.

Yes, doing the mechanistic part of deduction properly is important--that is why we created computers in the first place, to do that part better (i.e. faster and more accurately) than we could.
 

redacted

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 28, 2007
Messages
4,223
Note, there are some things, we simply cannot make. We cannot write a program that will analyze all programs to determine if they stop or not--this is known as the halting problem. We cannot make a perpetual motion machine, nor can we make a machine that is 100% efficient.

Yeah, I mentioned the halting problem before (or the universal debugger problem). It has to apply to human perception as well, though.

These are limitations to human creativity--just to show that there are limits.

There are potential stumbling blocks to building a machine that does what a human does in terms of "reasoning"

1) The mind/brain is connected to the body. A lot of what the brain does is based on its inputs from the rest of the body, and its ability to make decisions based on perceived abilities of that body.

Right, which is why, if we actually wanted to make a "conscious" computer, we'd have to think of the body as part of the computer too, and make input/output systems that included all of that stuff (and time should be thought of as an output, too).

2) An individual is embedded in society, and much of what we call deduction and induction are done for particular social purposes.

Meh. A person raised just by their parents is still capable of inductive and deductive reasoning. We would have to build the computer such that we still had to "teach" it language and certain reasoning skills. We would have to build in strong constraints, though (as Chomsky pointed out).

3) Although, we have been quite successful at making machines that mimic or exceed human capabilities in the mechanistic aspects of reasoning, we have yet to produce one that actually seems intelligent. I've played chess computers that beat be most of the time. I don't consider them intelligent, though I consider their designers to be quite intelligent.

Yes. I wasn't making the point that it HAS happened, or even WILL happen. I was making the point that it COULD happen.

I think we should all question our ideas of what constitutes "thought" and "consciousness", etc. If we define those things well, such that they apply to all humans we consider to think, then programmers can hypothetically think of ways to replicate certain functions that would fit the constraints in the definition.

It's not that wacky of an idea -- again, there's something in philosophy called the "zombie argument" (or something like that). This states that we don't really know if anyone around us is "thinking" or if they are just well-built automatons that fool us. We make the conclusion that they think based on only visible evidence (which isn't enough to get at their internal states, obviously). Therefore, if we were fooled by a computer, we'd call it "conscious". In fact, we could be fooled by computers all around us all the time.

We can't define the word "consciousness" in any way that could really separate the limits of computers out and keep all humans in.

I could expand on those ideas, but I don't believe deduction is necessarily accurately characterized as following a mechanistic procedure.

From mathematical proof to physical theory, to ideas for chess games. The intellectual act is not what is done mechanistically, but what is done to correctly feed the mechanistic processes.

Yes, doing the mechanistic part of deduction properly is important--that is why we created computers in the first place, to do that part better (i.e. faster and more accurately) than we could.

Meh, I still am not getting my point across about deduction, I guess.

All I'm trying to say is that humans are systems built up out of (and only out of) little functions. Same with computers. (Same with everything, even).

Anyway, we can control the functions we put on a computer. So if we replicated the right ones, we would get the same emergent trait of consciousness.
 

ygolo

My termites win
Joined
Aug 6, 2007
Messages
5,986
Yeah, I mentioned the halting problem before (or the universal debugger problem). It has to apply to human perception as well, though.

Not that I disagree, but what evidence is there that the it applies to human perception as well? Is it based on categorizing human beings as mechanistic things? Or is there experimental evidence?

We can't define the word "consciousness" in any way that could really separate the limits of computers out and keep all humans in.

This is my main point of contention.

What if, as we learn more about the mathematical properties of conciousness as a function, we find out that its Kolmogrov complexity is such that no amount of consiousness can be applied to consciously design another concsiousness? --That is highly self-refential, but I think you'll get what I am saying.

Note, it is an important distinction about consciously desing another consciousness. We can already create other consioucsiosness, it's called reproduction. We need little understanding to do this, we've done it since the caveman days--that's why we are here.

Meh, I still am not getting my point across about deduction, I guess.

All I'm trying to say is that humans are systems built up out of (and only out of) little functions. Same with computers. (Same with everything, even).

Anyway, we can control the functions we put on a computer. So if we replicated the right ones, we would get the same emergent trait of consciousness.

I think I do understand your point. But some fuctions cannot be defined--What if consciousness is one of those functions that cannot be defined?
 

redacted

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 28, 2007
Messages
4,223
Not that I disagree, but what evidence is there that the it applies to human perception as well? Is it based on categorizing human beings as mechanistic things? Or is there experimental evidence?

Well, the evidence is that the problem is literally unsolvable (proven). We aren't made up out of anything that sets us apart from the kind of stuff that can't solve the problem...

If we can solve it, then computers can solve it. Because if we explain the solution to someone, we're basically "programming" their understanding.

This is my main point of contention.

What if, as we learn more about the mathematical properties of conciousness as a function, we find out that its Kolmogrov complexity is such that no amount of consiousness can be applied to consciously design another concsiousness? --That is highly self-refential, but I think you'll get what I am saying.

I see what you're saying, sure. I just don't think "consciousness" is something that can be defined clearly. It's an elusive concept. It's gray, and if you make it a set of features, you can program it. But if it stays gray, I guess you can't.

But it's worthless in conversation in that case.

Note, it is an important distinction about consciously desing another consciousness. We can already create other consioucsiosness, it's called reproduction. We need little understanding to do this, we've done it since the caveman days--that's why we are here.



I think I do understand your point. But some fuctions cannot be defined--What if consciousness is one of those functions that cannot be defined?

Well it definitely can be defined if we go bottom-up. Like, all the way bottom. It's just too complex for our computer systems right now.
 

Nocapszy

no clinkz 'til brooklyn
Joined
Jun 29, 2007
Messages
4,517
MBTI Type
ENTP
Dude didums...

What the he'll do you think? Its not an analogy. Brain isn't = computer.
Brain is a type of computer. If you disagree, then you need to revise your idea of what a computer is.
The brain does compute, ergo, it is a computer.
Its a matter of linguistics. You can't deny that. Your stubborn refusal to appropriately examine the fundamental aspects of the matter is a display of nothing more than being deliberately obtuse.

Read this very carefully.
I never said that a brain could be plugged into a wall and we could run windows on it.
I never said that you could go down to CompUSA and buy a brain.
I said, a brain computes.
Sure, it doesn't use ASCII like we know of. So what? Does that change the fact that ideas are generated by ordered impulses, and conclusions the same way?

No it doesn't. You attempt to prove me wrong by saying I don't argue effectively. Your exact words were "Proof by assertion" which you so ignorantly assumed was my intention.
In response, you attempted disproof, by desertion.

Doesnt work that way either, but at least I'm not being hypocritical.
 
Top